As a medievalist, I have been bemused and frustrated by the way Brown's novel has been taken as historical fact since I first had the displeasure of struggling through his turgid prose in late 2004. Since then I have found myself in discussions/debates with Da Vinci fans regarding the many and various historical errors in the novel both online and in 'real life'. In many of those online discussions I have pointed people to online resources on the subject as well as to the small library of books on the novel's claims. I have often recommended your The Da Vinci Hoax and several of the online articles by yourself and Sandra Miesel, particularly "The 'It's Just Fiction!' Doctrine: Reading Too Little Into The Da Vinci Code".

Inevitably, the response to these recommendations has often been that you and writers like you are simply "dupes of the Vatican" (something Darrell Bock would, no doubt, find highly amusing) and that you are simply defending your faith because you are scared of the 'revelations about history' that the Code supposedly makes. These people usually assume that I am a Christian as well and are often confused when I explain that I'm an atheist.

Frustrated by this, I set out about 18 months ago to produce an online resource which examines the claims made in the DVC from a purely historical, religiously-neutral perspective. This has been partly to counter the idea that only Christians disagree with this novel's silly claims, partly to show that religious critics like yourself make arguments which are soundly based on historical research and partly to provide a resource that non-Christians can regard as 'unbiased'.

The site is not fully complete, but the 'Chapter by Chapter' analysis of the 'historical' claims made in the novel is up (weighing in at 45,000 words in total), along with other resources.

While I appreciate that your beliefs and mine are diametrically 'opposed', I hope you might find my site useful and would also hope that you might feature it on your blog. I have already received enthusiastic feedback on it from Christians, who have thanked me for the respectful way I have handled sensitive religious subjects. They've also mentioned they've found it useful to direct people to a 'non-religious' site, to counter the regular accusations of 'bias'.

As a regular contributor to various online fora on history, I soon began to see the impact this novel was having on peoples' perceptions of history. I saw people making claims about the Gnostic gospels, early Christianity, the Emperor Constantine, the Knights Templar and Jesus which were not supprted by the historical evidence but came directly from their reading of this novel. Eventually I got tired of repeating myself in countering these claims and decided that an online resource comparing the assertions in the novel to the evidence could be a useful project.

Be sure to check out this excellent resource, especially the "Chapters" section, which provides a running commentary on the novel's many errors, chapter by chapter. And don't miss the "Fiction?" page, which explains why an atheist would bother to spend time responding to a work of fiction.

BTW, here is part of my response to Mr. O'Neill's initial e-mail:

I especially appreciate your work because I am so tired of hearing that Christians who are responding to TDVC are "angry" or "afraid" or "weak in their faith" or "narrow minded." As Sandra Miesel has noted on many occasions, even if she was atheist and had little or no interest in the theological/religious issues involved, she would still be offended by Brown's novel because of how it purports to be based on fact, has been accepted as a well-researched work by many reviewers and readers, and yet is filled with errors, howlers, and outright falsehoods about verifiable historical facts. And the way that Brown was initially touted as being some sort of great researcher is incredibly pathetic. And the shrugs and "so what?" attitudes that have accompanied the movie have been equally exasperating.

I also appreciate the kind remarks made on your site about our book. Obviously, as you note, we do come from different perspectives and, in a different time and place, we might have a rousing (and civilized, I think) debate about theism and atheism. But just as I know that many Christians do have a blind and poorly informed faith, I also know that many atheists and agnostics do indeed respect and value truth. And so your efforts to educate people about the many historical errors of TDVC is greatly appreciated.

I've been meaning to write a bit on this question, but have been spared some of the time and effort by Greg Wright, who wrote this short but insightful review of TDVC movie when it first came out (oh so many days ago). Wright (who is not a Catholic, btw) observed the following:

Earlier today, MSNBC carried an AP story
which reported that Ron Howard's movie "subtly softens" the material of
Dan Brown's book. The Associated Press couldn't have it more wrong.

Yes,
Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon does find some new dialogue in his mouth
courtesy of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, words that at least play
devil's advocate with Ian McKellen's Leigh Teabing. But in the end, the
cinematic Langdon becomes much more of a true believer than does his
literary counterpart.

Three major innovations introduced by Howard's movie:

First,
his film portrays Opus Dei and the "shadow council" of the Vatican as
really being in cahoots, really conspiring to kill people in the name
of God, really trying to supress intellectual inquiry, really turning
its back on truth and righteousness. In short, Ron Howard turns the
Catholic Church into a genuine villain. Shameful.

Second, the
movie further fabricates ancient history, making the charge that
history is unclear whether the Roman Empire or the Christians were the
first agressors. Please!

Third, and most importantly, the film
invests significant energy in validating the Magdalene myth. While in
Brown's book Marie Chauvel basically leaves the existence of the
Sangreal documents and Magdalene's bones to the world's imagination,
Howard has Langdon and Neveu discover plenty of material evidence to
back up the claim.

Where's the mystery that feeds the soul?
Where's the adventure? You'll have to find it in the book, I'm afraid.
There's no codebreaking here, just polemic.

These are excellent points — but they were missed (or ignored) by most other reviewers of the movie. For many reviewers, the unforgiveable sin of Howard's flick is that it is ponderous, boring, silly. But Wright is absolutely correct that movie, just like the novel, is much more about polemics than storytelling. Which is one reason the storytelling is so ponderous, boring, silly. Which, happily, blunts some of the polemics, but hardly exonerates the filmmakers from going to such lengths to disdainfully (or is it "dis-Dan-fully"?) attack the Catholicism, historical fact, and commonsense.

GodSpy.com's John Murphy (who also lives here in Oregon) did not read TDVC, but saw the movie. He was less than impressed:

It’s not that the movie is bad. It might have been more entertaining if it was. Instead, DVC has that depressing kind of competency which signals lack of conviction married to bald-faced greed. The sets are big and expensive, but nothing interesting happens in them. The actors are top-notch, but the script doesn’t supply them with human beings to play.

Yes, indeed. Say what you will about Ron Howard, he was honest when he said he would be true to the novel. And so he was, making a movie that is tedious, pretentious, bloated, annoying, and just as arrogant and filled with error as Dan Brown's book.

DVC is more than anti-Catholic, though. Any movie with a plot that hinges on Christ having married Mary Magdalene and spawned a line of dissolute French monarchs (oh, and was also definitely not God) safely falls within the parameters of a more general kind of anti-Christianity. However, DVC is also anti-plausibility, anti-character development, anti-subtlety, and anti-fun. So I’m all for anything this movie is against. Frankly, I’m more offended by the ways in which the film insults my intelligence than I am by the ways in which it insults my faith. ...

If the movie is anything like the book (and I’ve heard it’s a faithful adaptation), then I am truly worried about the state of literacy in the world. What happened to the days when Dickens was hugely popular? Or Shakespeare could pack’em in at the Globe? I enjoy a good beach read, like anybody. But there is suspend-your-disbelief fun and then there is brain-frying stupidity. There are moments in this movie that border on self-parody.

I think it's safe to say that Shakespeare and Dickens aren't part of the vocabulary of most fourteen to twenty-two-year-old kids these days. I hardly had a top-notch public education, but in my senior English class I had to read Macbeth, Ivanhoe, My Name Is Asher Lev, Brave New World, and excerpts from Hemingway, Ambrose Pierce, and a few others. My English teacher retired soon thereafter and eight years later my sister was taught English literature by a young teacher obsessed with Bram Stoker's Dracula — to the degree his class spent an entire semester on that single book. Anyhow, I am inclined to think that the "brain-frying stupidity" of TDVC novel/movie are so successful because such stupidity has become the genius of our time. And heaven help anyone who announces that the emperor is both naked and stupid. As Chesterton wrote in one of his bazillion columns: "These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." Even when those creeds involve little more than mocking the Creed...

From the "What were ya'll thinkin'?" department comes this news (via Agape Press):

A Christian leader is criticizing the way some churches have handled the controversy surrounding the recent film version of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code. He believes it was a mistake to use the movie as an evangelistic tool. ...

... audiences are turning out in great numbers to see the highly publicized film starring Tom Hanks. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council says much of that audience comes from churches that have encouraged their members to go see it. He believes that was not a good idea.

"Urging people to go and see it to make it an evangelistic opportunity I think was a big mistake," the ministry leader says, "and will backfire and will only lead people down the wrong road."

Schenck feels people should have been warned not to spend their money in support of a film considered blasphemous by numerous religious leaders and groups. "We probably would have been better to ignore it," he laments.

He adds that the movie turnout will only encourage Hollywood to make more anti-Christian films. "[T]his was clearly made to make a statement against the gospel," says Schenck.

Though thoroughly anti-Christian, it is such a bad movie it can’t even get the bigotry right. ...

Nevertheless, the movie pulls off what I would have thought was next to impossible: it is both mind-numbingly boring and stridently anti-Christian. ...

As for recognizing blasphemy, we hear the objection, “But it’s only
fiction.” Would the same defense be offered if Hollywood produced The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Satanic Verses?
Furthermore, if Ron Howard had wanted to make a fast-paced murder
mystery, there are many scenes he could have cut, all to the movie’s
advantage. Scenes of a deranged, nude, sadomasochistic “monk” praying
before a crucifix as preparatory to committing murder, intentionally
mock Christian faith, and Ron Howard’s decision to include them shows
that he shares Dan Brown’s contempt for Christianity. Any normal
Christian would be offended. That many will not be offended is an
indication of the extent to which our society has become
post-Christian. ...

And the coup de grace:

A society incapable of recognizing blasphemy against the God that 80%
of its citizens claim to worship, is a post-Christian society lacking
self-respect. Those without self-respect will be incapable of seeing
why their fellow citizens deserve respect. Such a society becomes
capable of believing and tolerating almost anything if it contributes
to comfort and demands no sacrifice. This is not a mark of
sophistication or virtue; it’s evidence of profound decadence.

That's the question posed on this Yahoo! forum and here are some of the erudite and thoughtful answers:

• We can ask this question forever, but the truth is, no-one will ever really know cause no-one can prove either beyond a shadow of a doubt.

• I think the code is right

• I think its too late. too many people have gotten carried away. Its a book. It has some ideas and theories. Thats all. Its not a book that can change the world. And the only reason why its effecting the Christian faith is because they are taking it way too personal.

• It is a book.It is not right or wrong

• who cares! the story is good!

And the winner:

• Who r we 2 decide? ultimately in time 2 the truth will be revealed. just wait n watch. Thou alot of details in da book make u wonder (the priory of zion, the templars knights, the blood of jesus cud it have meant a bloodline?) ... After all jesus walked this earth as a human n definatley had human needs...

Hmmm. I sense a common theme in many of the "answers": We really cannot know what happened. There's no way to find out the truth about Jesus. We can't figure out the truth nor should we try to push it on others.

Coincidentally (ha!), that general notion comes through loud and clear (and heavy-handedly) in the movie, which has the main characters making absurd assertions and then, in the next breath, opining about how the most important thing is not knowing the truth (since you can't know it!), but "is what you believe." In the words of a former ("Christian") boss of mine: "The most important thing is finding a spirituality that works for you." That, in essence, is a major message of the novel and the movie. The other central message is just as noxious: Christianity is a sham and a lie. Avoid it. Deny it. Mock it.

A piece written while in New Jersey this past Thursday, after traveling to Washington, D.C. and New York City and giving a bazillion radio and television interviews.

What Do Christians Know?

by Carl E. OlsonPosted May 19, 2006

The way some pundits and journalists are telling it, you might think that many Christians are too narrow-minded and emotionally fragile to understand that "The Da Vinci Code" is just a novel (and a movie and an industry). The common theme of more than few recent articles and editorials has been, "Hey, Christians, lighten up and realize that it's only fiction!"

BTW, the original version of my essay included another, final paragraph:

Howard, to be fair, is simply following in the footsteps of Dan Brown. The novelist has had it both ways for three years now, saying his story is based on truth and fact while hiding behind the skirts of fiction whenever criticism comes his way. As G.K. Chesterton noted a century ago, “A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author. It does much more than that, it tells us the truth about its readers; and, oddly enough, it tell us this all the more the more cynical and immoral be the motive of its manufacture.” But, of course, Chesterton was a Christian, so what did he know?

... in decent screenwriting and
filmmaking. One word: pathetic. If I were Dan Brown I would sue Sony
and Ron Howard for doing what I thought was impossible: making a movie
that was worse than the novel, which is like Isaiah Thomas taking over
the Knicks and making that team even worse. Hey, it can be done, but it
takes a special sort of, um, genius to do so.

Anyhow, sports comparisons aside, Steve Greydanus's review of The Da Vinci Code is excellent and
right on the money. The changes made to the movie do not, as he rightly
points out, "soften" the anti-Catholicism, but merely make it that much
more insidious. I nearly laughed aloud a couple of times when Langdon
and Teabing disagreed about this or that historical point -- and both
were wildly wrong. The not-so-funny aspect of such exchanges is that
some viewers will see this is as an example of serious debate between
two scholars, but will never bother to see if the "competing"
perspectives offered have any basis in real scholarship.

The movie is painfully long and dreadfully self-important. It is, in
fact, very much like the novel, which is a poorly written, overwrought,
pseudo-intellectual piece of anti-Catholic rot. In The Da Vinci Hoax, Sandra Miesel and I offered a description of the novel that fits the movie just as well: "The Da Vinci Code
is custom-made fiction for our time: pretentious, posturing,
self-serving, arrogant, self-congratulatory, condescending, glib,
illogical, superficial, and deviant." Thus, it's irritating to read
so many reviews (not Steve's, of course) insisting that the movie lacks
the magic, charm, wit, excitement, intensity, blah, blah, blah of the
novel. Poppycock. The movie simply reveals many of the serious artistic
flaws of the novel; it hardly could avoid doing so, unless the
screenplay had completely departed from the novel. It seems to me that
most people today make more demands of what they see in a theater than
they make of what they read on the page. Part of that, I'm sure, is
because many fans of TDVC don't read many books, or, to be more
precise, many good books.

The movie, like the novel, takes its message very, very seriously.
This is blatantly obvious in the final 15 minutes, when Langdon (Tom
Hanks) yammers endlessly about how the most important thing is what you
believe -- not whether or not it is true, good, or right. While
deviating in exact language from the novel, this is essentially Brown's
message (as he as expressed in interviews): we must be able to create
our own truth and not have truth shoved down our throats by nasty old
men who are selling us the lie called Christianity. This is a
misleading and false choice, of course, but one that plays very well in
today's culture.

Finally, I figured (as did nearly everyone else) that the opening
weekend would be huge for this movie. And it was. But I also thought
that its numbers would substantially decrease after the first weekend.
However, I wonder now if I was wrong in thinking so. Like the novel,
the movie will continue to attract attention. The only advantage held
by the novel, so to speak, was that it came out of the blue; the movie
has been met with a flood of criticism and response, which has, to some
extent, changed perceptions of the movie, if only to cause nearly every
review on the planet to condescendingly point out that it's "just a
movie" and "just entertainment." And why is it so entertaining to
millions of people? Well, it's not because of the writing, the
characters, or the plot. In large part it's because many people want to
be told that it's alright to reject and bash Catholicism, and feel as
though they are smart and sophisticated in doing so. However, if, as I
think is the case, people do take their movies more seriously then
their reading material, perhaps the movie will end up sinking quickly.

I
plan to post a few more thoughts about the movie and reaction to it in
the next couple of days. Again, Steve's review is an excellent and
accurate assessment of the movie.

Judging by some recent news articles, Christians are the ones who don't know history (and therefore, the logic goes, are afraid of TDVC. Right.) But being clueless about history shines brightest, so to speak, among anti-Catholics. For example, this e-mail from a reader (via Matt Abbott):

The Catholic Church denouncing anything because they feel it lacks
logic and reason is hilarious. That the target is a work of fiction
makes it even better. Attacking a work of fiction because it lacks
historical facts is in itself an act lacking in logic and reason. I
mean, really, I love it. I needed a good laugh. The Catholic Church,
wanting logic and reason. If the Catholic Church would like logic and
reason perhaps they should ask Galileo...oh, wait...my bad, killed him
because they didn't like his logic and reason. Like I said, just wanted to say thanks. That was a good one.

So the Catholic Church killed Galileo? I wonder what novel this reader digested in order to learn that "fact"? For the record, Galileo lived into his late 70s and died of natural causes; he never had to worry that he would be killed by the Church. More info here. Oh, and Galileo was a Catholic. So he obviously wasn't very logical, eh? For much more, read this excellent article by George Sim Johnson.

News Today is a large English newspaper in southern India. Today it published an article that perfectly demonstrates how lazy, incorrect, and clueless some articles about The Da Vinci Code can be -- and often are. A couple of examples:

Author of the book and its upcoming big-screen adaptation from Columbia Pictures, Dan Brown, in his website, categorically explained that The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist, like the Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings.

Uh, yeah. But why not also note that the novel's "FACT" page states that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"? And that that statement is not accurate? And that when a novelist describes historical figures and events and insists that his descriptions are accurate, he is the one who has set the bar?

Brown says that the real elements in the book have been interpreted and debated by fictional characters and each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations.

Ah, I think I understand: just because the novel's hero, Robert Langdon, makes bold assertions (including some that have been repeated by Brown in non-fictional interviews) that are clearly meant to be received sympathetically by readers, we shouldn't understand that to be an endorsement of those views. Even though Brown has admitted that Langdon was created, in large part, by drawing upon the persona and outlook of one of Brown's heroes, Joseph Campbell.

His hope was for the novel to serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

Yes, probably similar to how the author(s) of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" wanted that text to provide a springboard for people to discuss important ideas, such as "Are Jews controlling the world" and "What's so bad about anti-Semitism?" This particular line of "reasoning" is incredibly disingenuous because it's quite obvious that Brown is not a serious student of history, theology, or artwork. If anything, he's a student of whacky conspiracy theories rooted in unabashed anti-Catholicism.

'Anti-Christian, it is not', says Brown, in his website, stressing that it is not anti-anything in anyway. It is important to remember that a reader does not have to agree with every word in the novel to use the book as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.

Let's say I wrote a novel about how Judaism was founded for purely political purposes, that Abraham, Moses, and David weren't actually Hebrews/Jews, that Judaism oppresses women, and that orthodox Jewish beliefs about God are both outdated and superstitious. Let's say I crowed about how well-researched my book was. Let's say I went on national television and said that if I had to write the book as a work of non-fiction, I wouldn't change a thing. Would that provide, say, Jewish readers with a "positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of [their] faith"?

According to one critic, a historian named James Hitchcock, as quoted in the book, 'The Da Vinci Hoax', by Olson and Miesel, 'The Da Vinci Code' can be viewed as an ephemeral artifact of popular culture, but its immense sales ensure that it will have influence on people who never read serious books. Brown has found a formula for becoming rich: sensationalism, feminism, and the occult'.

Finally, something of substance! And don't pass over the FACT that Dr. James Hitchcock is an actual historian and scholar who has published numerous scholarly essays and books on matters of history. Hey, he might know what he's talking about, right? But the author of this "news piece" has a trick up the sleeve:

The fact is Brown's book is fiction. He himself says so.

Wow! Amazing! It's just fiction! Really? Well, I suppose that's why the writer just penned these words a couple of paragraphs earlier: Brown's "hope was for the novel to serve as a catalyst and a springboard
for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and
history." But it's just fiction! But, wait, there's more: "Brown and film director Ron Howard maintain that they are simply
encouraging a review of early church history and the roots of the
Christian faith." But it's just fiction!

This is the sort of stupidity that makes MTV look thoughtful and People magazine read like Proust. Is this crude charade really so hard to see through? Apparently so.

Oh, by the way, this blog is fiction. I've simply eliminated the characters and plot because no one care about them anyhow.